Now, Myers, a general partner in the Mayfield Fund, a venture capital firm, is planning to do the same for charity--invest millions in people and concepts with potential, refine their strategies, link them to elite professional networks, and, he hopes, make them wildly successful.

His new line of work is called venture philanthropy.

"I think the exact same principles can apply to a non-profit," said Myers, who heads a new philanthropy, the Entrepreneurs' Foundation, that has yet to select its first recipients. "The basic concepts are just about the same."

The notion of applying venture-capital business strategies to non-profit causes is a trend generating both promise and controversy in philanthropic circles nationwide.

The debate over the merits of venture philanthropy coincides with what many consider a golden era in charitable giving akin to the early 1900s, when Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford created foundations that bear their names.

Last year, for the third consecutive year, charitable giving rose to a record, $175 billion, according to the annual industry report called Giving USA. The unprecedented creation of wealth, both through the stock market and through the transfer of wealth from one generation to the next, is altering the face of philanthropy, according to a report this year by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

Venture philanthropy is in many respects a metaphor for many changes at hand in the philanthropic world with the infusion of new donors, who bring with them new causes and ideas of how charitable work ought to be done. Its terminology and image are tied to Silicon Valley, where the term was coined about 15 years ago, but its methods are turning up in established and new philanthropies across the nation.

Rebecca Rimel, president of the Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts, writes on the organization's Web site, "At the trusts, we are thinking more like venture capitalists, seeking to derive the greatest benefit from every strategic investment of time, talent and capital."

In Redwood City, Calif., some of Silicon Valley's most prominent venture capitalists are participating in the New Schools Fund, an organization founded this year with the intention of using venture capital techniques to solve the problems plaguing public education. Two years ago, the Harvard Business Review, famous for its vignettes of business successes and failures, published, "Virtuous Capital: What Foundations Can Learn from Venture Capitalists."

Though the term has no strict definition, Tom Reis, venture philanthropy director at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, described the difference between the classic and new methods with broad generalizations.

At a traditional foundation, he said, giving is generally hands off. A foundation will give a grant and then perhaps have no contact with the charity for a year. Many foundations offer money for a maximum of three years, he said, and insist that the money be spent exclusively on programs, not on staff or other basic necessities, such as rent or utilities.

By contrast, Reis said, the venture philanthropist's style is hands on. A venture philanthropist might want a seat on the charity's board and insist on seeing results.

"It is sexy and controversial, and it makes some common sense," he said. "Many people of new wealth are coming out of that new economic world. They say, `I don't just want to give money. I want to get involved. I want to give know-how, too. I know what it takes to get impact and success.' "

Advocates say the new methods have the potential to bring new ideas and experimentation to philanthropic pursuits.

"This will shake up the world of philanthropy in some aspects, in a healthy way," said J. Gregory Dees, a professor of public service at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business who teaches a course on social entrepreneurship.

As government provides fewer social services, more non-profit organizations are trying to fill the gap, he said. At the same time, philanthropies are facing pressure to find strategies that sustain their operations and to adopt a more businesslike approach to their work. This "pro-business zeitgeist," as he calls it now embraces business concepts that can be adapted for social missions, rather than believing that business is the enemy that creates social problems.

Detractors consider the trend alarming in many respects, in part because they believe an emphasis on return on investment and measurable outcomes may mean venture philanthropists will aim for the easiest targets, not necessarily the most pressing needs. Moreover, venture capital, they note, is by nature risky. A few spectacularly successful investments make up for the many others that fail--a pattern these critics fear may be repeated in venture philanthropy.